I'd beware of anyone out to prove a point with deliberately doctored images in a internet forum. The 5D Mark II image is either doctored or from a damaged or defective camera. A 5D mark II does not have poor images like those shown.However, I will say that Low ISO, the D800 does have a lot of usable DR, but at High ISO, it has less than the 5D MK III. It tends to be more important at very high ISO's for me than at low ISO's, but thats just me.Here is a image from my D800 which really suprised me with its ability to capture a interior along with a bright sunny outdoors.

Rude? Are those your images? Posting obviously altered images seems to me to be rude.I have been into photography for quite a few more years than you, started on digital earlier, and have owned or used many digital cameras, including two 5D Mark II's, two 5D Mark III's and a D800.I've never seen the banding like that shown in the images, except on forums where the images were under exposed and then pulled up several stops. You have to really manipulate the images in post, or have a defective camera. If your 5D Mark II's produce images like those with a proper exposure, and you did not send them back I'd prefer to see information from and intrepreterted by the actual tester.Sensorgen.org charts are derived DXO information, just a repeat of the same info. "One source, the one which is used for the data on this site is DxOmark.com."DXO's own chart illustrates the higher DR for the 5D Mark III at high ISO's and the excellent DR for the D800 at low ISO's. It pretty well matches what I've seen with my cameras.

I have a completely different view, with the D800 I can act completely different than what I can do with my Canon cameras, which I have shown a number of times at dpreviewWith Canon, you must have the camera on a tripod and take 2-3-4 exposures,

There is no way the D800 sensor can record so much that you need 3 or 4 exposures on Canon to match. That's ridiculous. You might need 2 if you absolutely must have the same noise characteristics in the shadows. But if we're being that picky, at 2 you will get a better final image.

BTW, with AEB I hand hold multiple exposure shots all the time. It doesn't work for action, but I never need it there.

Quote

with the D800 I can have the camera by hand and take one shoot and then working with the same raw file and produce one after shadows and the other for highlight, midtone, and then put them together.A certain difference in freedom of taking photos and with a good results because of 14 stops DR in the d800 compared to 11 stops in 5dmk2 and that not including pattern noise

3 stops? No. Not if you do the same thing with the Canon file (develop 2 versions from the RAW and merge).

The D800 is better, yes, but this is the kind of exaggeration I'm talking about.

read it againI did not say it is the same thing, I wrote that the result of one exposure and then developed in 2 ways give a good results and i do not need a tripod, freedom

There is something so seriously wrong with that 5D II image. There is red banding and FPN throughout the entire image, even the highlights. There is NO WAY that image was properly exposed in the first place. I've seen that kind of banding in sample black-frame 5D II images, but only after pushing exposure by about 8 stops, or by opening the image in PS/ACR and using the levels tool to drop the white point to within a fraction of the black point. The 5D II's maximum saturation is 64600e- and its read noise at ISO 100 is 28e-. That is a ratio of 2307:1! No friggin way your going to see that kind of banding with a minor curve bump like you've demonstrated. That exposure would have to be underexposed by many stops to exhibit like that. I cry fowl!!

BTW, banding noise IS READ NOISE. Read noise is a bit too specific, as that generally refers to the noise introduced by the ADC. I tend to refer to electronic noise, which comes in a variety of forms, but is all very low relative to maximum signal (even when there is 28 electrons worth!) Its a bunch of bullhonkey when you mentioned before that banding is not taken into account when determining DR...absolutely it is, its simply that DR is computed as the AVERAGE of read noise to maximum saturation. Since it is the average of electronic noise, that that would mean your computing DR as the ratio between what would roughly be 14e- and 64600e-, a ratio of 4614:1 (or 11.something stops), so some electronic noise...such as banding...will show through in very deep shadows.

Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.

The difference is there, and it can be noticed in some situations. But generally speaking you will still get the shot, you might just have a little more noticeable noise / less detail at the extremes. Also, generally speaking, for landscape shots with really impressive DR / noise / detail you will be shooting and blending multiple exposures with any current body.

I have a completely different view, with the D800 I can act completely different than what I can do with my Canon cameras, which I have shown a number of times at dpreviewWith Canon, you must have the camera on a tripod and take 2-3-4 exposures, with the D800 I can have the camera by hand and take one shoot and then working with the same raw file and produce one after shadows and the other for highlight, midtone, and then put them together.A certain difference in freedom of taking photos and with a good results because of 14 stops DR in the d800 compared to 11 stops in 5dmk2 and that not including pattern noise

i am not a pro. photographer or whatever. i am a software/system guy. however, i am willing to match your d800 pix that you have shown with just one shot (do not need multiple shots) using my canon 7d (do not need to use my 5d mark III), except the sharpness (you should know why).

i am the one who just recently start to learn photography (little bit more than 6 months starting from a t3, move up to 7d and buy another 30d for learning purpose, and recently again bought another 5d mark III for low light support. i can prove it that i am not a pro but i can match your image with just one shot)

both canon and nikon have their own pros and cons. they are both good. i really hate when coming to talk about technical data and apply that to favor one over another. if i take pictures with two different cameras and you can recognize which one is nikon, which one is canon then i will BUY YOUR THOUGH.

note: "Here is a image from my D800 which really suprised me with its ability to capture a interior along with a bright sunny outdoors". image will show all details when taking with right exposure and white balance (thought that you should know that).

I don't need to. Several people have now pointed out that they do not see banding that bad on 5D's, and I don't see banding that bad even on a 7D. Don't blame the camera for mistakes you might have made in your test, processing, or presentation.

if shadow is left at 0, the banding is almost not discernable.But any value above 0 the banding begins to appear in the dark area below the trees, this is in an area of RGB value of about 50, 35, 25, as processed, so not exactly near black and this is not much of a shadow push, frankly.

If I'd have had the lens I needed with me I could have shot this on my D5100 and the dark area would have been TOTALLY CLEAN even if I wanted to push it up to where the foreground was completely visible at lower midtones.

attached crop of banded shadow area at DPP settings describe above, (+5 shadow)crop taken from below left of center

I've only tested 2 7D bodies, they were equally this bad. Some of you may have better ones, count yourself lucky. The readout channel mismatch between the dual processors working on the 7D sensor's dual readout is likely responsible for the 8 pixel wide vertical stripes.

I'm reluctant to even try the v 2.0.3 firmware as it still may be buggy altho v2 firmware did improve my 5D2's banding considerably, if not enough to make me love it.

very interesting thread this is...these are tests i would never do on my own.question is...how often do you have to PP your images so much to this extent? I've personally maybe only faces extreme DR scenarios like once or twice a year... maybe I'm just not shooting enough or I'm only shooting in ideal conditions..but for me..if the situation isn't ideal..I'd rather not shoot. maybe the Canon cameras suffer from all these mentioned problems..but unless you're saying every one of your shots are like this...I'm sure 99% of the time it performs great!

very interesting thread this is...these are tests i would never do on my own.question is...how often do you have to PP your images so much to this extent? I've personally maybe only faces extreme DR scenarios like once or twice a year... maybe I'm just not shooting enough or I'm only shooting in ideal conditions..but for me..if the situation isn't ideal..I'd rather not shoot. maybe the Canon cameras suffer from all these mentioned problems..but unless you're saying every one of your shots are like this...I'm sure 99% of the time it performs great!

The paraggrapgh below contains thoughts straight out of my head that don't have any facts behind them. This is how I understand the camera IQ, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

For my work tonal range may be more important than dynamic range and can help me in getting all these nice colours in the image. While there's visible difference in DR (longitude of the RAW data, as I understand it – from black to white) of Canon vs. Sony sensors, I don't see any leaps in tonal range (latitude of the RAW data, number of tones) improvements:

I'm a 550D user who has just yesterday ordered a 7D. I've never even looked through the viewfinder on a FF camera, let alone held one.

I do know my way around my camera, but on these boards I keep hearing people talking about Dynamic Range when comparing cameras or making wish lists of improvements.

Can somebody please point towards a good explanation of DR and also comparisons between similar cameras (e.g. D800 and 5D M2/3) so I can understand it better and how it impacts me? Also any explanation of camera IQ would be helpful.

Cheers.

For decades photographers have pursued higher and higher DR in camera's since the original daguerreotype. How much have we improved? Eh, Its hard to say in camera tech.

But,

In-out camera technique such as filters, timing, scouting, HDR (if you like that sorta thing), you can can easily photograph stuff that's far, far beyond anything a bare sensor can capture. Like 20 Stops.

Image quality, dynamic range, high ISO noise, graphs, numbers, SNR (signal to noise ratio) ... all that makes a lot of sense when you know what it is all about. For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance. All the different tests are just for judging the same thing from different perspectives.The easy answer for FF vs crop - pixel pitch. For example, 5D3 pixels (6.25 µm) are bigger than 7D pixels (4.3 µm), therefore they get more light and produce stronger signal (better SNR). 5D2 has even (slightly) bigger pixels, but the older sensor and processor technology makes it inferior to 5D3. SNR deficiency impacts false color (image noise basicaly) and false resolution of the "bayer filter" type sensor.

Any thoughts on tonal range affecting IQ? Or everyone is so obsessed with DR that there's no point in mentioning this?

tonal range is going to be similar for most cameras because they have a similar overall signal to noise ratios around midtones, despite the differences in overall DR

if the SNR is improved, and thereby DR will likely improve along with it, then it's possible to use more digitizing bits to define a particular pixels signal level and that can lead to finer tonal gradations. (12 vs 14 vs 16 bit for example)

This is where medium format digital has an advantage with their big clean pixels and 16 bit digitizing, they seem to be able to produce better tonal gradients in the midtone and lower levels which make for smoother looking images than you get from smaller sensors. You can see this same effect to some extent by comparing FF 35mm digital with compact cameras.

however, most of that's rendered moot when final output is 8 bit-per color jpeg or similar 8 bit files used for printing.

until the final output is capable of utilizing more than 8 bits per color you're not likely to get more than 8 bits unless you interpolate downwards from higher sampling precision.

also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but tonal range reduces as you move towards the darker areas simply because there are less bits there to work with (smaller numbers describing the intensity levels)I think the tonal levels DxO mark measures are likely done around middle gray.

Mikael Risedal - the 7D yields nearly 11 stops in RAW, and a solid 10 in JPEG with HTP, and this is confirmed by multiple sources. Unless the testing was done in JPEG with HTP off, those graphs are simply wrong.

Side note - what drives me nuts about photographic conversations (and political conversations for that matter) is that people generally take sides. Once they have their side, they are hypercritical of any information that might support the other side, and completely uncritical of any information they deem to support their side. They also make the differences between the two sides seem larger than Mount Everest. This thread is degrading into that kind of nonsense.

Quote

There is no sign that Canon have invest 1 billion or more in new sensor lines to keep up with others.

You know darn well (or should know by now) that the difference in shadow noise between Canon and Sony sensors is due to a patent that is difficult to work around, and has nothing to do with the fab facilities or other tech on the sensor. As I recall from detailed discussions on dpreview, Canon is ahead on other points. But the way they read data off the sensor, and the banding that results, is what stands out at this time in (fanboy) Internet arguments.

Quote

Therefore it will be very interesting to se what the 46Mp roomers are about, and if it is the old 7d sensor stitched to a 24 x36mm then Canon has lost their credibility in my eyes

I would rather have the 7D sensor scaled to 46 MP than the D800 sensor. The differences in resolution and DR are small either way, but I would rather have the resolution. And I regularly push the DR in my photos.

Rude? Are those your images? Posting obviously altered images seems to me to be rude.I have been into photography for quite a few more years than you, started on digital earlier, and have owned or used many digital cameras, including two 5D Mark II's, two 5D Mark III's and a D800.I've never seen the banding like that

How can you be earlier with SLR cameras? I have used scanning backs if that is what you mean to Hasselblads years earlier the first D-SLR came to the market ?

this is 5dmk3 and 5dmk2 in lover levels, Canon has smeared the 5dmk3 visual noise but it is the same structurevisible noise in a garage door from d7000 and 5dmk2 same exposure, same handling .

That has to be the most ridiculous thing ever. What picture would you EVER take that looks like either of them? Since the answer is obviously none, the test is ridiculous and meaningless. I've used both the 5D2 and 5D3 and even pushing photos, nothing has ever looked like that. You get a picutre back:

Now we come to the core, with a Sony sensor you can use the camera differently, you can underexpose to get highlights that are far above average gray...

Typical "defend my team" use of adjectives instead of mathematical precision: "far above". You can get about 1.5 additional stops of DR. Noticeable, can be nice to have at times, but not the end of the world. (Few people would consider a 10-15% gain "far above".)

While I'm at it...most of these comparisons expose the bodies in the same way. You would give the Canon a bit more exposure and recover the highlights in post. That's even noted in some of the comparisons, including one you linked.